Transcript 2001 Environmental Sustainability Index

2001 Environmental
Sustainability Index
Or,
Can you really measure the
unmeasurable?
March 1, 2001
Columbia Engineering School
Partners
• World Economic Forum, Global Leaders
for Tomorrow Environment Task Force
• Yale University Center for Environmental
Law and Policy
• Columbia University Center for
International Earth Science Information
Network
Key Findings
• Measuring Environmental Sustainability is
Possible
 ESI Ranks 122 countries
 Based on 67 empirical measurements
• Economic conditions are important, but not a
fundamental policy constraint
 Among countries at similar income levels, there is
no correlation between GDP/capita and ESI.
• Data limitations present severe constraint on
shift toward more analytically rigorous
environmental decision-making
ESI’s Purpose:
• Benchmark environmental performance
• Identify comparatively environmental
results that are above or below
expectations
• Identify “best practices”
• Investigate interactions between
environmental and economic
performance
Part of broader movement
to measure sustainability
•
•
•
•
UN Commission on Sustainable Development
OECD
Rio + 10 initiatives
Consultative Group on Sustainable
Development Indicators
• Corporate-level efforts
 Global Reporting Initiative
 WBCSD
• National and Local efforts
2001 Rankings
G:\Davos2001\Map_AV\esi 2001_map.jpg
Top Quintile
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Finland
Norway
Canada
Sweden
Switzerland
New Zealand
Australia
Austria
Iceland
Denmark
United States
Netherlands
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
France
Uruguay
Germany
United Kingdom
Ireland
Slovak Republic
Argentina
Portugal
Hungary
Japan
Lithuania
Slovenia
Spain
Bottom Quintile
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Kyrgyz Republic
Bangladesh
Macedonia
Togo
Algeria
Benin
Burkina Faso
Iran
Syria
Sudan
China
Lebanon
Ukraine
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
Niger
Philippines
Madagascar
Vietnam
Rwanda
Kuwait
Nigeria
Libya
Ethiopia
Burundi
Saudi Arabia
Haiti
Middle 3 Quintiles
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Costa Rica
Estonia
Brazil
Czech Republic
Bolivia
Chile
Latvia
Russia
Panama
Cuba
Colombia
Italy
Peru
Croatia
Botswana
Greece
Zimbabwe
Nicaragua
Ecuador
South Africa
Mauritius
Venezuela
Armenia
Gabon
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Mongolia
Sri Lanka
Malaysia
Israel
Paraguay
Fiji
Central African Republic
Belarus
Poland
Moldova
Bulgaria
Guatemala
Papua New Guinea
Ghana
Honduras
Singapore
Nepal
Egypt
Trinidad and Tobago
Azerbaijan
Turkey
Mali
Dominican Republic
Mexico
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Thailand
Bhutan
Cameroon
Mozambique
Albania
Belgium
Romania
Uganda
Kenya
Tunisia
El Salvador
Pakistan
Indonesia
Senegal
Jamaica
Morocco
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Malawi
India
Tanzania
South Korea
Jordan
Zambia
Methodology: Guiding
Principles
• Create ESI in a systematic, transparent, and
reproducible manner.
• Be faithful to scientific literature as well as
relevant to the major policy debates.
• Be applicable to a wide range of situations
and conditions.
• Make use of what can actually be measured
today but leave room for movement
tomorrow.
5 Core Components
• 22 Indicators
Environmental
Stresses
• Reducing Air Pollution
• Reducing Water Stress
• Reducing Ecosystem
Stress
• Reducing Waste and
Consumption Pressures
• Reducing Population
Stress
Human
Vulnerability
• Basic Sustenance
• Environmental Health
Environmental
Systems
•
•
•
•
•
Air Quality
Water Quantity
Water Quality
Biodiversity
Terrestrial Systems
Social and
Institutional
Capacity
• Science/Technology
• Capacity for Debate
• Regulation and
Management
• Environmental
Information
• Eco-Efficiency
• Reducing Public Choice
Failures
• Private Sector
Responsiveness
Global
Stewardship
• International
Commitment
• Global-Scale
Funding/Participation
• Protecting International
Commons
Adding it all up
• For each of the 22 indicators, we
identified 2-6 variables to serve as
quantitative measures (67 total)
• We weighted the indicators equally in
computing the Index
67
variables
22
indicators
Index
Example: environmental
health
Bolivia
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Canada
Central African Republic
Costa Rica
Croatia
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuw ait
Lebanon
Macedonia
Mexico
Niger
Norw ay
Philippines
Sw itzerland
Uganda
Ukraine
-3.50
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-.50
Child Mortality
Intestinal Infection De
Respiratory Disease
.00
.50
1.00
1.50
Variable scores are averaged
to get indicator scores
Switzerland
Bolivia
Bulgaria
Canada
Burkina
Finland
Faso
Norway
Canada
Central African Republic
Croatia
Costa
Kuwait
Rica
Estonia
Croatia
Bulgaria
Ecuador
CostaEgypt
Rica
El Salvador
Ukraine
Kazakhstan
Estonia
Macedonia
Finland
Indonesia
Lebanon
Environmental Health
Kazakhstan
Ecuador
Mexico
Kenya
Philippines
Kuwait
Indonesia
Lebanon
El
Macedonia
Salvador
Mexico
Egypt
Kenya
Niger
Norway
Bolivia
Philippines
Uganda
Central African
Switzerland
Republic
Burkina
Uganda
Faso
Ukraine
Niger
-3.00
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-.50
.00
.50
1.00
1.50
• ES
ESI 2001
Makes
Country-Level
Data Available
• 122 countries
• Across 22 indicators
• With reference to
income-based peer
groups
ESI Ranking
Albania
ESI:
44.2
Ranking:
78
GDP/Capita:
$2,804
Peer group ESI:
45.2
Variable coverage:
46 of 67
Missing variables imputed:
14
5 Core Components
Environmental Systems
100
45
Global
Stew ardship
Reducing
Stresses
19
65
0
40
48
Social and Institutional
Capacity
Reducing Human
Vulnerability
22 indicators
Air Quality
-0.22
0.15
0.03
Water Quantity
-0.14
-0.35
Water Quality
1.01
Biodiversity
Terrestrial Systems
0.06
-1.75
-0.05
-0.06
Reducing Air Pollution
0.30
0.67
Reducing Water Stress
-0.02
0.39
0.14
0.64
0.59
0.33
0.03
Reducing Ecosystem Stress
Reducing Waste & Consumption Pressures
Reducing Population Stress
-0.09
-0.20
Basic Human Sustenance
0.00
Environmental Health
-0.18
-0.60
-0.29
-0.52
-0.42
-0.70
-0.36
Science/Technology
Capacity for Debate
Regulation and Management
0.16
Private Sector Responsiveness
-0.04
0.31
Environmental Information
-0.18
-0.02
Eco-efficiency
-0.64
-0.48
-0.44
Reducing Public Choice Distortions
International Commitment
Global-Scale Funding/Participation
0.06
-1.68
-0.41
-1.17
-0.07
0.24
0.06
Protecting International Commons
= Indicator value
= Reference (average value for peer group)
Analysis
• Spot broad patterns
• Identify successful (and failing) policies
• Explore correlations between
environment and other factors
(corruption, income, population)
• Specify causal relationships and drivers
of good environmental performance
Example: Analysis of
Economy-Environment
Relationship
• Does environmental sustainability rise
or fall with growing income?
• Can poor countries afford good
environmental performance?
• Does strong environmental performance
harm national competitiveness?
Does environmental
sustainability rise or fall
with growing income?
In general,
higher levels of
income are
associated with
higher ESI
scores
90
Canada
80
70
UK
France
USA
Russia
60
Germany Japan
Italy
50
India
40
China
30
20
0
10000
GDP per capita (PPP), 1998
20000
30000
40000
But richer countries
aren’t good at
everything
Environmental Systems
100
63
Global
Stew ardship
Reducing
Stresses
56
0
Social and Institutional
Capacity
83
37
82
Reducing Human
Vulnerability
Can poor countries afford
good environmental
performance?
90
80
Sw eden
70
60
Italy
GDP Quintile
50
Cameroon
5
40
4
3
30
2
ESI
Haiti
20
.
1
-10000
0
10000
20000
GDP (PPP) per capita - 1998
30000
40000
Does strong environmental
performance harm national
competitiveness?
90
Canada
80
70
France
USA
UK Germany
Japan
60
Russia
Italy
50
India
40
China
30
60
50
40
30
2000 Current Competitiveness Index
20
10
0
90
Finland
Norw ay
Canada
Sw eden
Sw itzerland
80
Australia
70
Denmark
United States
Netherlands
France
Germany
United Kingdom
Ireland
Japan
Spain
60
Italy
Malaysia
ESI
50
Singapore
Mexico
Belgium
40
Rsq = 0.5080
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
1.5
ECOVAL
Coefficientsa
Model
1
Uns tandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Cons tant)
76.663
7.885
ECOVAL
7.814
1.565
GDP_CAP 3.594E-05
.000
DENS5
-17.448
4.112
a. Dependent Variable: ESI
Standardi
zed
Coefficien
ts
Beta
.696
.017
-.515
t
9.723
4.992
.119
-4.243
Sig.
.000
.000
.907
.001
Innovest
rankings
surprisingly
highly correlated
with ESI
Corruption also highly
correlated
• Query: How many corporate
sustainability reports document levels
of corruption?
Model
1
90
(Cons tant)
GRAFT
Coefficientsa
Uns tandardized
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
-.300
.097
.429
.084
Standardi
zed
Coefficien
ts
Beta
.579
t
-3.091
5.115
Sig.
.003
.000
Partial
Correlation
.126
.060
-.005
-.014
.020
-.089
-.015
-.081
.102
Collinearit
y
Statis tics
Tolerance
.222
.296
.969
.881
.946
.928
.962
.752
.998
a. Dependent Variable: SYS_AIR
80
Excluded Variablesb
70
60
Model
1
GDP_CAP
GDPCAPS
PROP_URB
STR_AIR
COALKM
CARSKM
SO2KM
NOXKM
VOCKM
Rsq = 0.5648
50
40
ESI
30
20
-1.5
-1.0
-.5
0.0
.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Graft Index of Control of Corruption, 1997-98
2.5
Beta In
.218 a
.089 a
-.004a
-.012a
.017 a
-.075a
-.013a
-.076a
.083 a
t
.905
.426
-.033
-.098
.143
-.637
-.109
-.579
.733
a. Predictors in the Model: (Cons tant), GRAFT
b. Dependent Variable: SYS_AIR
Sig.
.370
.672
.974
.922
.887
.527
.914
.565
.467
Conclusions
Next steps
• Support efforts at major improvement
in data creation and collection
• Interactive version of ESI
• More work at integrating information at
different scales
• Build capacity for consistent measures
over time
Post-Davos fallout, banal
• Attack of the green meanies
 ESI is “meaningless noise”
 Related criticism from other “narrower is better”
quarters
• Shallow Hurrah-ism
 “We’re number 3!”
 “We’re less horrible than we first thought!”
• Sulking bitterness
 “The hell-hole that is Belgium”
Post-Davos Falloutinteresting
• Potential coordination with other indicator efforts in
development




National
International (CSD, CSGDI, Rio+10)
City-based indicators
Regional (NAFTA, Mercosur, Asia, …)
• Discussion about intensive efforts at database creation
 Global map of wilderness areas
 Global water quality index
 Firm-level indicators
• Discussion about potential applications of ESI
 Linked to investment instruments (green bond fund, CDM)
 Research tool (Kuznets curves; geographic influences)
Where do firms fit in?
 Potential users of the Index
Many aspects are relevant to business climate and
risk analysis
– Government subsidies
– Transparency and consistency of environmental
regulations
– Corruption
– Quality of life measures
Where do firms fit
in?
• Potential suppliers of data to the Index
 Often firms have access to high quality, relevant
information
 Effectiveness of regulations, local practices concerning
waste disposal and treatment, water quality, etc.
 Firms that wanted to could collect basic
environmental information and provide it to a
global clearinghouse
Where do firms fit
in?
• Strong interest in including firm-level
information in future ESI
 Useful national indicator (do some countries do
better than others at promoting firm-level
environmental innovation?)
 Useful global stewardship indicator (which firms
are helping to strengthen national sustainability
efforts, which are taking advantage of weak
ones?)
 Most frequently suggested addition to 2000 ESI was
“private sector responsibility” measure
 Often firm-level activity is the most scientifically
relevant scale
• There is much more relevant firm-level information collected
than will ever be reported publicly.
 Are there creative strategies for liberating, filtering, and providing
controlled access to some of that information?